Tuesday, September 23, 2014

United States Launches Airstrikes in Syria - Real Target Is Assad

Late Monday evening, September 22, the United States began the first of its airstrikes inside Syria.

Although details are still murky about where the attacks took place and
what targets were actually hit, the Pentagon has acknowledged
responsibility for the bombings.

According to USA Today,
Rear Admiral John Kirby stated that "I can confirm that U.S. military
and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL
terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land
Attack Missiles. Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a
position to provide additional details at this time."

USA Today reports that the strikes were carried out both by bomber jets
and by ships firing cruise missiles. It is said that the strikes have
hit about 20 ISIS targets, including what is being called “headquarters
buildings” for “militants who have based their movement in Syria.”

The attacks were not carried out with the coordination and cooperation
of the Syrian government. Nor were they carried out with Syrian
government permission.

While Syria has already stated that any airstrikes
conducted over Syrian airspace would be considered an act of war and
that Syria might very well shoot down any American planes conducting
those strikes, it is as of yet unclear as to how the Syrian government
will respond.

The United States has repeatedly stated
that it refuses to coordinate any airstrikes with the Syrian government
and responded with an Orwellian statement that it would oust Assad
military if he dare defend himself against American attacks.

The attacks come after a decision made by the White House and approved
by Congress on September 17, 2014, to arm and train the alleged
“moderate” Syrian rebels. The vote was 273-156 in favor of the $500
million plan. Of course, the bill in question was actually an amendment
that was cynically attached to a bill designed to continue funding for the federal government in the short-term, ensuring maximum support from members of the House.

Then, on Thursday September 19, the U.S. Senate followed
suit by approving the plan as well. The support for the plan in the
Senate was, as expected, bipartisan with members such as Nancy Pelosi,
Harry Reid, John McCain, John Boehner, and Lindsey Graham voting “Yes” on the bill.

The Obama administration reiterated
that it was neither asking for permission nor for a new authorization
to use military force. The White House asserts that it has all the
authority it needs to achieve its goals under the authorizations to use
military force that were approved after the 9/11 attacks and in the
run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Essentially, as Obama stated in his address to the American people on
September 10, the consultation of Congress was a mere formality. The
plan to aid the “moderate rebels” fighting against Assad and engage in
airstrikes against the secular government was going ahead regardless of
the decision by Congress.

Much like the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as well as passing
the PATRIOT ACT, and other Constitution-shredding legislation, Congress
was convinced to support the plan both because their handlers directed
them to do so or because the risk of revealing themselves as completely
irrelevant was too damaging to undertake.

Yet, while the amendment was sold to the American people and even
members of Congress as Obama’s plan to “detect and degrade” ISIS, the
reality is that the plan is nothing more than a plan to detect and
destroy the Syrian government to benefit of ISIS and other
fundamentalist groups that the United States has created, funded,
trained, and directed since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.

Even Congressman Justin Amash was able to recognize the fact that this
new amendment was a clever disguise for a war on the secular government
of Syria with no options off the table, including the use of ground
troops.

Today’s amendment ostensibly is aimed at
destroying ISIS—yet you’d hardly know it from reading the amendment’s
text. The world has witnessed with horror the evil of ISIS: the public
beheading of innocents, the killing of Christians, Muslims, and others.

The amendment’s focus—arming groups fighting the Assad government in
Syria—has little to do with defeating ISIS. The mission that the
amendment advances plainly isn’t the defeat of ISIS; it’s the defeat of
Assad.
[...]

The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement
in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arm’s
length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes
“assistance” to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of
weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots
on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the president’s power to
order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress
doesn’t provide “specific statutory authorization” for such
escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war.
[...]

If the Syrian groups that are “appropriately vetted” (the amendment’s
language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result? Would the groups
assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad fighters, and would that
coalition include ISIS? What would happen to the Alawites and Christians
who stood with Assad? To what extent would the U.S. government be
obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild the government? If each of the
groups went its own way, would Syria’s territory be broken apart, and if
so, would ISIS control one of the resulting countries?

While
Amash was correct to suggest that Congress should have opposed the
amendment and that the amendment was actually a plan for an assault
against the Syrian government as well as the fact that that anarchy,
chaos, and unspeakable violence will reign supreme in Syria if the
“appropriately vetted” groups managed to gain control of the country,
Amash does miss part of the point.

The truth is not that “we don’t know much about the groups we are
funding in Syria.” The truth is that “we” know full well that they are
ISIS/Al-Qaeda terrorists, with only an occasional name change and branch
off due to Western political motives or internal squabbling. That has
been and still is the whole point.

. . . . . there were never, nor are there any
"moderates" operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and
funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in
preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving
US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists
operating along and within Syria's borders as "divided" along
extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of
Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as
create conditions along Syria's borders with which Western partners,
Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.

Indeed,
even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as
Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of
the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard wrote in April, 2013,

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels
aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head
a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized
government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from
the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with
Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades
led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella
rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline
radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic
law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. [emphasis added]

Even
one of the FSA commanders, Bassel Idriss, recently admitted to openly
collaborating with ISIS and al-Nusra, revealing yet another example of
the fact that the “moderate rebels” are not moderate at all.

In an interview with the Daily Star of Lebanon,
Idriss stated “We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the
Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in . . . Qalamoun .
. . . Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right
now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they
launch as long as it coincides with our values.”

Idriss also admitted that many FSA fighters had pledged allegiance to
ISIS. He said, “[ISIS] wanted to enhance its presence in the Western
Qalamoun area. After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the
hills [around Arsal], many units pledged allegiance [to ISIS]”.

Abu Fidaa, a retired Syrian Army Colonel who is now a part of the
Revolutionary Council in the Qalamoun, corroborated Idrisss’ statements
by saying that “A very large number of FSA members [in Arsal] have
joined ISIS and Nusra. In the end, people want to eat, they want to
live, and the Islamic State has everything.”

Not only the FSA, but also the Syrian Revolutionary Front has also
openly admitted to working with Nusra and al-Qaeda. The leader of the
SRF, Jamaal Maarouf admitted that his brigades coordinate with Nusra and al-Qaeda regularly.

ISIS Is Controlled By The U.S. And NATO

It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy
force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective
military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive
finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.

Beginning in 2011 - and actually even as early
as 2007 - the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting
the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to
overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and
undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any
other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.

Billions
in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including
Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called "Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria" or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of
ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey's borders
with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward - this is because
it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.

They
didn't "take" this gear from "moderates." There were never any
moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see
unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon - current and
former officials - interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran
journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh's 9-page 2007 report, "The Redirection" states explicitly:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with
Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

"Extremist
groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam" and are "sympathetic to
Al Qaeda" - is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the
words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed,
grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and
taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh's report would also forewarn the
sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the
region's Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.

While
Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death
squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been
reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for
Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint
NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as
2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide
sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran's arch of influence
stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as
Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored,
trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and
Persian Gulf states within Turkey's (NATO territory) borders and has
launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish
artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the
cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province
in northwest Syria.

Keep in mind also that, prior to the rapid appearance and seizure of
territory by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, European media outlets like Der Spiegel reported
that hundreds of fighters were being trained in Jordan by Western
intelligence and military personnel for the purpose of deployment in
Syria to fight against Assad. The numbers were said to be expected to
reach about 10,000 fighters when the reports were issued in March, 2013.
Although Western and European media outlets would try to spin the
operation as the training of “moderate rebels,” subsequent reports
revealed that these fighters were actually ISIS fighters.

Western media outlets have also gone to great lengths to spin the fact
that ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq with an alarming number of
American weapons and equipment. As Business Insiderstated,
“The report [study by the London-based small arms research organization
Conflict Armament Research] said the jihadists disposed of ‘significant
quantities’ of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and
included photos showing the markings ‘Property of US Govt.’” The article
also acknowledged that a large number of the weapons used by ISIS were
provided by Saudi Arabia, a close American ally.

ISIS Attack On Taqba Airbase – The Precursor To A NATO Attack On Syria

Keeping in mind that ISIS is controlled and directed by NATO and Western
intelligence, the fact that the death squads have recently focused on
the Taqba Airbase in Raqqa province
is significant. Particularly when viewed in context of the recent
“debate” taking place in front of the American public by the Obama
administration on whether or not to engage in targeted airstrikes inside
Syria.

For those who may not see the pattern
– while the United States and NATO deliberated engaging in targeted
airstrikes in Syria and the Syrian government subsequently states its
opposition to those attacks and its intentions to shoot down the planes
delivering those strikes if they do not coordinate with the Syrian
government, death squads have effectively eliminated the air defense
capability of the Syrian government in the east of the country.

After all, the Pentagon even stated that one of the biggest threatsto
an airstrike operation in Syria is the Syrian government’s air
defenses. Thanks to ISIS, those air defenses no longer exist in the east
of Syria.

This was the end game of the ISIS battle to take over Taqba from the
start – eliminate air defenses so that the NATO powers can launch
airstrikes against the Syrian military and thus freeing up a launching
pad for the terrorists to conduct attacks even deeper into Syria.

The reason
that ISIS was allowed to seize such large swaths of territory across
Iraq was an attempt to create a justification for the eventual invasion
of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment
of American troops, airstrikes,
or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle
against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the
organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met
with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint
regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing
“handcuffs on the troops.”

Any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be
taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such
military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at
establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in
the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a
new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS
and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.

The general support for the Sunni revolt in
northern and western Iraq will make it very difficult for any
counter-offensive, which would be facing far more opponents than Isis
originally fielded. Isis now controls almost all the Euphrates valley
from Fallujah west of Baghdad through western Iraq and eastern Syria as
far as the Turkish border. Any long-term campaign against Isis by the
Iraqi government backed by US air power would require air strikes in
Syria as well as Iraq. The two countries have effectively become a
single battlefield.

Consider also, the writings of former State Department Director of Policy Planning under the Obama administration, Anne Marie Slaughter,
who has been foaming at the mouth every bit as much as John McCain when
it comes to the prospect of intervening militarily in Syria. In her
most recent op-ed in the New York Times, “Don’t Fight In Iraq And Ignore Syria,” the appropriately-named Slaughter writes,

Deciding that the Syrian government, as bad as
it is, was still better than the alternative of ISIS profoundly missed
the point. As long as we allow the Syrian government to continue
perpetrating the worst campaign of crimes against humanity since Rwanda,
support for ISIS will continue. As long as we choose Prime Minister
Maliki over the interests of his citizens, all his citizens, his
government can never be safe.

President Obama should be asking the same question in Iraq and Syria.
What course of action will be best, in the short and the long term, for
the Iraqi and Syrian people? What course of action will be most likely
to stop the violence and misery they experience on a daily basis? What
course of action will give them the best chance of peace, prosperity and
a decent government?

The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a
limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind
all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not
only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any
individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating
table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent
leaders can begin to consolidate power.

Bombing Syria – A Strike At Russia

Slaughter’s previous op-eds, of course, betray an underlying reason for
her obsessive warmongering against Syria – the strategic desire to
weaken Russia. In this, Slaughter reveals herself as an adherent to the Brzezinski doctrine as it is espoused in The Grand Chessboard.[1]
Even if Slaughter does not openly state her affinity for such a
destructive and provocative foreign policy by name, her ideology is
revealed by both her actions and her work. It is important to point out
that Slaughter’s position should not be construed as merely her own, but
as a representation of the desires of the NATO powers that employ her.

Indeed, in her April, 2014 op-ed for Project Syndicate, entitled “Stopping Russia Starts In Syria,” Slaughter is nothing if not obvious about her offensive geopolitical targeting of the Russian Federation as well as that of China and Japan. She writes that,

The solution to the crisis in Ukraine lies in
part in Syria. It is time for US President Barack Obama to demonstrate
that he can order the offensive use of force in circumstances other than
secret drone attacks or covert operations. The result will change the
strategic calculus not only in Damascus, but also in Moscow, not to
mention Beijing and Tokyo.

Slaughter essentially argues that
Putin is much too strong to inflict damaging geopolitical costs in
Ukraine. She suggests that Putin is much weaker in Syria, however, and,
therefore, it is Syria where the United States must strike. Slaughter
states,

Regardless of Putin’s initial motivations, he
is now operating in an environment in which he is quite certain of the
parameters of play. He is weighing the value of further dismemberment of
Ukraine, with some pieces either joining Russia or becoming Russian
vassal states, against the pain of much stronger and more comprehensive
economic sanctions. Western use of force, other than to send arms to a
fairly hapless Ukrainian army, is not part of the equation.

That
is a problem. In the case of Syria, the US, the world’s largest and
most flexible military power, has chosen to negotiate with its hands
tied behind its back for more than three years. This is no less of a
mistake in the case of Russia, with a leader like Putin who measures
himself and his fellow leaders in terms of crude machismo.

It is time to change Putin’s calculations, and Syria is the place to do it.

After
repeating the tired, disproven, and borderline idiotic propaganda of
Assad’s alleged “chemical weapons attacks,” “killing his own people,”
and “barrel bombs,” Slaughter attempts to cover up what is nothing more
than a geopolitical strategy as a humanitarian issue.

Slaughter laments the fact that “It is impossible to strike Syria
legally so long as Russia sits on the United Nations Security Council,
given its ability to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force.”
However, she continues her article by stating that the United States
should act anyway, unilaterally or multilaterally, by striking Syria
and, at the very least, destroying its “fixed wing aircraft.”

The US, together with as many countries as will cooperate, could use
force to eliminate Syria’s fixed-wing aircraft as a first step toward
enforcing Resolution 2139. “Aerial bombardment” would still likely
continue via helicopter, but such a strike would announce immediately
that the game has changed. After the strike, the US, France, and Britain
should ask for the Security Council’s approval of the action taken, as
they did after NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999,” she states.

Slaughter continues by writing,

Equally important, shots fired by the US in
Syria will echo loudly in Russia. The great irony is that Putin is now
seeking to do in Ukraine exactly what Assad has done so successfully:
portray a legitimate political opposition as a gang of thugs and
terrorists, while relying on provocations and lies to turn non-violent
protest into violent attacks that then justify an armed response.

Slaughter,
of course, was angry that the incessant and nonsensical propaganda of
her former office, the US State Department, and other Western
governments across the world had largely failed to manufacture a string
of lies that would serve to effectively motivate Americans to gear up
for war yet again.

Indeed, up until this point, on this particular issue, American apathy largely contributed to preventing a war.

Unfortunately, with slightly more clever propaganda narratives, that
apathy was finally converted to the benefit of the world oligarchy. Such
techniques of propaganda are well understood by elites the world over.

For those of us who have tried to warn of and prevent a direct military
intervention in Syria, we must now continue to keep the Syrian people in
our thoughts and prayers.

But we must also keep the United States in those thoughts and prayers.
For what has been done in our name, we have just earned some terrible
karmic consequences.

The United States has sown some very bitter seeds in recent years.
Unfortunately, there will be a day when we all are forced to reap the
bitter harvest.

Quotes

"There is beauty in truth, even if it's painful. Those who lie, twist life so that it looks tasty to the lazy, brilliant to the ignorant, and powerful to the weak. But lies only strengthen our defects. They don't teach us anything, help anything, fix anything or cure anything. Nor do they develop one's character, one's mind, one's heart or one's soul." Jose Harris

KnowingTest provides Independent News in blog format to assist other activists, teachers, and elders with alternative news, information on social issues, and research material.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Respecter.info (Website) may post copyrighted material not specifically authorized in accordance with Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law allowing purposes associating learning processes. Please be advised if you intend to use such copyrighted material for personal reasons beyond "fair use," considerations, please obtain permission from the copyright owner. Learning processes encompass a vast array of issues of concern and would not be restrictive, it would offer critique and extended scholarly research. Blog Guidelines

Website may display third party authors/advertising which may not represent the views or opinions of Website or contributors. Advertisements are not endorsed as such and are intended as alternative ways to support the work at Website. You may contact webmaster at our main site ExtraSensory.News.